March 17, 2010

Categories:

--Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), a House "yes" vote, said March 9 that he is undecided.

--Rep. Eliot Engel, a House "yes", is warning leadership in an op-ed not to take his vote for granted and that he needs some adjustments before supporting the final bill.

--Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), a "yes" vote on the House bill, told a local paper on March 9 that his is undecided.

--Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) voted against the House bill, but his spokeswoman told me March 4 that he was undecided, a position she reiterated on March 10 to the Plum Line.

UPDATED 3/8: Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.) moved from "no" to "undecided." He told local media outlets on March 2 and March 7 that he was voting against reform. But his spokesman told the Plum Line blog on March 8 that he’s undecided. Arcuri voted for the House bill.

--Rep Bill Owens (D-N.Y.) voted yes on the House bill, but told the Syracuse paper March 8 the he is undecided on the final bill.

--Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois voted for the House bill but the Weekly Standard reported March 8 that he would not back a final bill that doesn’t include Stupak’s abortion language.

--Retiring Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who voted against the House bill, told CNN March 7 that he’s now undecided, but still might vote against a health care bill -- even if it kills reform.

--Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), who voted “no” on the House bill, told “Fox News Sunday” on March 7 that he’s not leaning one way or the other though he sounded more “yes” than “no.”

--Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.), a “yes” vote on the House bill, told the AP March 4 that she’s undecided.

--Retiring Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) voted against the House bill but said in a statement March 4 that the president’s proposal is “moving in a more fiscally responsible direction.”

NO/LEANING NO

-Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who was a "yes" vote on the House bill, told Plum Line March 12 that he is now a "no."

--Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY), a "no" vote on the House bill, remains opposed to reform, according to a March 12 Plum Line post.

--Rep. Joe Donnelly, who voted for the House bill, called the Senate bill's abortion language a "fatal flaw" March 9 and said it was a deal breaker.

--Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wisc.), voted "yes" on the House bill, but told a local TV station on March 8 that he thinks comprehensive reform should be split up into smaller pieces.

--Rep. Jim Marshall, who voted "no" on the House bill, is also a no on the final bill, his office told Plum Line March 10.

--Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif), a "yes" vote on the House bill, said Feb. 18 in a local paper that he would not vote for the Senate bill. (Caveat here is that House leaders have talked about structuring the vote so members don't have to vote directly on the Senate bill.)

--On the March 7 edition of “Fox News Sunday,” Rep. John Adler (D-N.J.), a House bill “no” vote, said Speaker Pelosi hasn’t been working him to support reform.

--Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), a House bill “yes” vote, told the NYT March 4 that she’s “not inclined to support” the Senate bill.

--Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) announced March 4 that he won’t resign from the House as planned on March 8 in order to stay and fight health reform, keeping one more “no” vote in the House and forcing Dems to get 217 votes instead of 216.

YES/LEANING YES

UPDATED 3/17: Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.) voted for the House bill and said March 17 he will vote for the final bill. On March 8, the Weekly Standard reported that he would not back a final bill that doesn’t include Stupak’s abortion language.

UPDATED 3/17: --Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who voted against the House bill because it wasn't liberal enough, said March 17 he would vote for the final bill. On March 8, he told MSNBC that he will vote against reform because he doesn’t “see the Senate bill as the solution.”

UPDATED 3/17: -- Rep. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.) voted yes on the House bill and said March 16 he will vote yes on the final bill. On March 8, he told the Syracuse the he is undecided on the final bill.

--Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), a yes vote on reform who backed the Stupak language, told reporters March 9 that the Senate language will restrict the federal funding of abortions and that he'll probably vote for the final bill.

THIS BILL HAS TO BE STOPPED!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS NOTHING BUT A POWER GRAB BY MR. OBAMA. HE CARES ABOUT ONLY ONE THING - HIS IMAGE, HIS LEGACY. WE GENUINELY HAVE BUYERS REMORSE OVER THE LAST ELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would like to donate $10.00 towards the purchase of a hearing aid for Barry O - The Kenyan who's impersonating the president of the United States.
Barry can't seem to hear that over 75% of the American people do not want a bill that has no constitutional support.
Perhaps that's the way that the thugs do things in Chicago or in Kenya.
Barry O: WE THE PEOPL do not want Osamacare.
We do, however, want to see your legitimate birth certificate; and not some PSP document that some rank amateur at the white house created on his cell phone computer.
Barry - PLEASE resign now. It'll be easier and less embarrassing than being defeated and / or impeached and deported back to Kenya.
Even the Obama Girl doesn't like the azzhole.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/28/obama-girl-tells-hannity-least-i-wasnt-edwards-girl

What in the name of God are these Democratic Congressmen thinking? Unless they are flat-out opposed to the very concept of health care reform, why don't they seem to grasp that the upcoming House vote on this is the whole ballgame? This is it. If this Senate bill passes in the House comprehensive health care reform will become a reality.If it fails, the game is over. It will likely be many decades (at least) before the makeup of Congress allows another chance like this again.
I don't think anyone who supports health care reform could rationally argue that keeping the system the way that it is for another 50 years is preferable to adopting the Senate bill with some fixes added through the reconciliation process.Holding out for the perfect bill is insane. With the strongly united GOP opposition to any health care reform-EVER, what the Senate has passed is about as good as political realities will allow.
I realize that some Democratic Representatives have likely been paid off to vote NO & that others will vote NO to make keeping their seats easier.Those in the first group are flat out crooks, & those in the second are gutless cowards.
What good is holding public office if you don't stand for anything other than simply perpetuating your own career? What's the point of being in Congress if you help torpedo the most important social legislation since the passage of Medicare? The bill up for consideration would improve the lives of millions of Americans and finally address a great wrong that has been a blight on this country for decades.If reform is not passed now, it's unlikely another chance to pass it will occur in our lifetime.
I'm imploring Democratic members of the House to stand up for the interests of the people they're supposed to represent & vote YES on this bill.No possible reason related to promoting the interests of average Americans by voting NO exists.
Those members of Congress who plan to vote NO out of blatant self-interest should resign and do something else. Even if that something else were robbing banks, at least you wouldn't be hurting nearly as many people as a NO vote on health care reform will hurt now!!

To WMA:
So in other words, those Democrats who favor the current bill do so on principle, while those who oppose it do so because they are either gutless or corrupt. That is, if they don't agree with you, they are corrupt or gutless. Good grief. No party has any virtue at all. 90% of them are corrupt. You can choose to believe that drivel if you wish, but it is simply not true. Representatives are accountable to the people, and the fact that their constituents don't want the bill SHOULD affect how they vote -- not that they should vote that way every time, but it should in fact influence them. It's called "listening", something the past two Presidents are not very good at.
And to those who are impatient, if they have the votes, they will vote. They are "dithering" specifically because they do NOT have the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill.

Another important fallacy in WMA's comment is the false choice of this bill or the same system in 50 years. If cost and access are the issues, this bill is not the answer.
It's also amusing to me how some people supporting this bill seem to be under the illusion that there won't be any problems with health care delivery if it passes. In reality it will usher in a new era of constant need to correct the problems its new rules and mandates will create. The bill on offer doesn't effectively solve the actual problems with health care we face, but it's not obvious to me anymore that Democrat leaders intend for it to do so.

Mark - "In reality it will usher in a new era of constant need to correct the problems its new rules and mandates will create."

Of course we will be continually revisiting health care! As a country we are not prepared to "solve" the problem once and for all. The only way to solve cost and access problem for good is to introduce rationing.

But Americans don't want that. I don't want that. It's not in our character to accede to such fatalism. So we have to resign ourselves to patching and tweaking and fixing ad infinitum. But as we begin that process, we should begin on the right foot: that we will have an insurance system which supports affordable access to health insurance at all times for all citizens, making health insecurity and medical bankruptcies a thing of the past. This is the floor below which we should no longer go. Americans won't tolerate a ceiling, but it is reasonable to have a floor. Everything else is negotiable.

Stupak is on record this morning saying he will not vote for any third bill or modified bill until both he and the American people have had a chance to read it and fully digest it before the vote. And since no modifications are in writing yet......

Health care in this country will never get fixed until we fix primary care. Based upon this article, we may have a long way to go
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/03/primary-care-valued-saved.html#more-42721

Healthcare will never get fixed until we quit expecting other people to pay for us and all start taking personal responsibility for ourselves. Too many people want something for nothing on someone else's dime. That's what's wrong with healthcare.

Dan, I agree with you. However, this country needs more primary care doctors and nobody is addressing this. Where I live in Wisconsin, we are having a HARD time finding an internist that accepts Medicare, because the reimbusement rates are so low compared to private. Most primary care clinics are like a mill, get patients in and out. How can you give good care that way?

John, I agree 100%. You made one of the smartest observations I have heard on this site in over a month. You think Medicare reimbursement rates are bad, then try medicaid. They run those guys in and out with less than 5 minutes per visit regardless of your complaints. And that's with the few doctors who will actually take medicaid. John, if Medicare and Medicaid are so screwed up because of the artificially low reimbursement rates then what do you think Obamacare will do for the rest of us. Remember, Obama is proposing to have the same people who failed at Amtrack handle your healthcare. Is that really what you want?

John, I will say that if you have Medicare and you have a chronic illness, then you probably need to be seeing a speicalist for your primary care or at least and internal medicine doc. They are more familiar with billing procedures and more likely to bill for the level 3 visit that gives you 15 minutes with your doctor.

Jhoger--you have my respect. I completely disagree with you about Obamacare but you're obviously a sincere person who shows up here, and basically gets beaten up by the majority who loathe this bill....still, you keep your cool and continue to state your points without rancor...if the congress worked that way, we'd actually get something worthwhile done in this country...i think you're way off on this bill but totally respect you as a worthy opponent...hang in there...

Dan, you're lying again. There's nothing in HCR that sets reimbursement rates. Rates are determined by the private market, not by government. It's sad that your arguments are so weak that your only tactic left is to lie.

I am proud of Rep. Dale Kildee. A democrat who does not support abortion, but can see the fact that the Senate bill, does restrict funding of abortion to the extent required to give all Americans health care reform.

jhoger, where do you think greater government control over private heath insurance company profits, underwriting standards and rate increases is going to lead? Are you really that stupid or just a dishonest hack counting on the American people being that dumb? Sad little man.

First of all, to address Jhoger's point that reimbusement rates are set by the private market, that is not 100% true. According to my Cardologist, his rates are set by the insurance company, he has no say, and most of the time they are based on some multiple of medicare rates. In fact things have gotten so bad for some docs in private practice that they are leaving and joining hospitals as employees.

ProgessiveOne, don't pay any attention to Dan. He likes to "make it personal" since a) this is what they teach them in Dick Armey's Rules For FreedomWorks Stormturfers and b) he has no valid points to make anyway.

"oh please is jhoger. This is too funny. News Alert! jhoger likes and respects himself. lol'
note to dan: untrue...i post here a lot....i absolutely do not agree with jhoger but my comment was real...i respect him for how he handles himself in the face of a lot of opposition...so, i assure you...i am not jhoger---and, as the bowery boys used to say, i am also not a fig newton of your imagination!!

John - " In fact things have gotten so bad for some docs in private practice that they are leaving and joining hospitals as employees."

I have Kaiser HMO and in my experience, Doctors on salary, running the hospital is the best outcome imaginable. This reduces cost and increases quality. Yes some hotshot mavericks may insist on going it along, but if a doctor is so self important that they cannot be a member of a team of professionals, I don't want them.

oh, please - "still, you keep your cool and continue to state your points without rancor..."

Thank you for your gracious comment. I try to keep my cool but sadly I don't always succeed. But I'll keep banging my head against the wall in my quixotic quest to raise the signal to noise ratio of the Internet :-) .

jhoger: Pick your battles. Tough to do with the level of idiocy evidenced on the internet. If you really want to see imbecility go on a sports blog? Keep up the good oposition-at least your comments force me to examine all possibilities.

jhoger is not so gracious,,Point in fact..I advised him that Congress exempted itself from this bill and said he should go to Congressman Fleming of Louisiana website for proof since jhoger said it was not true. He answered back he did not g a f,,, what I said or what my mother said. I wish to inform him my mother is deceased and it proved what a lowlife he really is. I am a federal worker and Congress can exempt themselves from any bill it writes.

My point remains that the bill doesn't exempt members of Congress, and statements to the contrary are untrue.

Further in Obama's proposal he actually requires that the health care packages offered to Congress need to be a subset of those offered to everyone else.

Section 1312:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE—

(i) REQUIREMENT—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are—

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

(ii) DEFINITIONS—In this section:

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS—The term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF—The term ‘‘congressional staff’’ means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

So, can we put this one to rest now? Or would you care to excerpt the legislation to show us how members of congress are exempted?

No we can't... The bill doesn't exempt them, but they can exempt themselves. Go to Congressman Flemings website or call his office. He has an admenment that would have members of the House have to take the public obtion,,,guess how many support this admendment a bout 20. Now we can put it to rest...

Josie, the public option is not in the Senate bill, and the House bill is effectively dead and has been for a while. There is no "government run" health care in the Senate bill, which is what is going to be voted on. So Congressman Fleming's point is moot, and has been for a while.

So you can continue to believe what you're saying, all I'm saying is that your belief is based on incorrect or, at best, outdated facts.

DOA - That is where the bill is at now. Nothing the progressives can do about it now. Fraudbama doesn't have a magic wand, Reid is irrelevant and gone soon and the Senate knows it, and Pelosi is done as speaker shortly and possibly ousted as well come November. So people in both chambers see their current leadership gone come November and yet these same leaders are demanding that their members vote against the overwhelming view of the public and pass this pile of crap. Why follow these clowns off of the cliff for a bill that doesn’t do what they tout and will be certain to destroy their careers? Not happening… DOA!!!

Even Fraudbama's leading back pocket news channel CNN is now reporting the bill appears DOA but the progressives are doing everything possible to pass it. They are looking at voting to change laws, bypassing votes all together and / or reconciliation after the fact. Problem is they don't have enough progressives to do any of these things so it appears to be all talk and as a result they see the bill DOA at this point in time unless a miracle happens (emphasis added). Like I said weeks ago... this bill is DOA!!!

"And yet while insurance industry profits remain a standard point of denunciation, Democrats have been notably quiet on drug industry profits, which are a lot larger. A reader sends over SEC data indicating that the PhRMA companies on the Fortune 500 sector list had profits of $59 billion in 2009, a 40% increase over 2008.
Merck alone reported profits of $13 billion -- more than the entire health insurance sector.
Drug prices reportedly went up last year, but the drug industry has been an important ally, making concessions and backing the plan publicly. And so their profits don't seem to have been made an issue."
I'm sure you Lib Apologists will come up sith some excuse to cover how utterly gullible you all are. You get told not to believe your own lying eyes and you buy it hook line and sinker.

Posted By: "And yet while insurance industry profits remain a standard point of denunciation, Democrats have be | March 12, 2010 at 01:40 PM

Even highly respected Democratic strategist Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen came out today in the post and stated if this healthcare bill passes the democratic party will be eaten alive come November. They strongly oppose this bill being passed by their party and don't understand why the leadership teams do not get it. If the party follows their leaders then they will be walking the plank!!! Excerpts: 1. Their blind persistence in the face of reality threatens to turn this political march of folly into an electoral rout in November 2. First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate's reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes 3. However, a solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan. Four-fifths of those who oppose the plan strongly oppose it, according to Rasmussen polling this week 4. The notion that once enactment is forced, the public will suddenly embrace health-care reform could not be further from the truth. DOA!!!

"The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”
What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America?" - Rep. Bart Stupak from the National Review

The government exceeds its constitutional powers when it dictates to citizens that they must purchase something like health care. A license to operate a TV station is an entirely different matter. You have to pay for one to do your business. It is nationalization of the entire health care industry when you force people to participate by law. If they called it what it was, maybe some would go for it, but lying about what it really is makes clear that the supporters are afraid to come out into the open and say, "Yes, we want to nationalize the health care industry." The minute the government mandates the purchase of insurance, it has effectively nationalized/socialized a private industry. That is socialism, and that is what conservatives have been screaming about for months and months and months. Make no mistake: This will be socialism. Don't tell me the government will not be interfering with the health care industry, which will be called "still private." Read the bill and find out the true extent of government control. It's ALL government control, folks. It's socialism, the first step toward communism. There will be more than demonstrations if Obama and his gang try to institutionalize socialism in the United States. I can only hope and pray that our military establishment stays loyal to their oaths of protecting the country, not the person temporarily in the WH.

"And yet while insurance industry profits remain a standard point of denunciation, Democrats have been notably quiet on drug industry profits, which are a lot larger. A reader sends over SEC data indicating that the PhRMA companies on the Fortune 500 sector list had profits of $59 billion in 2009, a 40% increase over 2008. Merck alone reported profits of $13 billion -- more than the entire health insurance sector. Drug prices reportedly went up last year, but the drug industry has been an important ally, making concessions and backing the plan publicly. And so their profits don't seem to have been made an issue."

Jhoger--Wouldn't you agree that if the Democrats try the deem and pass it will be challenged constitutionally and if reconcilliation is attempted it will stop any future bipartisan legislation this year?